01/03/2005 - 00026702CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
JANUARY 3, 2005
The regular meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Lund at
7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund
Councilmember-at-Large Barnette
Councilmember Bolkcom
Councilmember Billings
Councilmember Wolfe
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Rick Pribyl, Finance Director
Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director
Julie Jones, Planning Director
Deb Skogen, City Clerk
OATH OF OFFICE: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER-AT-LARGE
Ms. Skogen, City Clerk, issued the oath of office for Mayor Lund and Councilmember-
at-Large Barnette.
PRESENTATION:
Certificate of Appreciation to the Fridley Knights of Columbus
Mayor Lund presented a certificate of appreciation to representatives from the Knights
of Columbus for their service to the City of Fridley.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of December 13, 2004
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 2
APPROVED.
1. Receive the Minutes from the Planninq Commission Meetinq of December
15, 2004.
RECEIVED.
2. Resolution Desiqnatinq Official Depositories for the Citv of Fridlev.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated staff was satisfied with the services offered by Wells
Fargo Bank, and recommend that Council appoint them as the City's official depository
for 2005.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-1.
3. Resolution Desiqnatinq an Official Newspaper for 2005.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, said staff recommended the designation of the Sun Focus as
the official legal newspaper for the City of Fridley for the year 2005. Staff also
recommended that the Minneapolis Star Tribune be designated as the City's second
official newspaper for 2005.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-2.
4. Resolution Authorizinq a Chanqe in Mileaqe Reimbursement Rates for
2005.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this resolution adopts the 2005 IRS mileage
reimbursement rate and changes it from $0.375 to $0.405. Staff recommends Council's
approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-3.
5. Resolution Imposinq Load Limits on Citv Streets.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this resolution imposes load limits on City streets.
These limits shall be in effect beginning on the date ordered by the State's
Commissioner of Transportation.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-4.
6. Resolution Desiqnatinq Director and Alternate Director to the Suburban
Rate Authoritv.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 3
Dr. Burns, City Manager, said staff is recommending that the Public Works Director and
the Assistant Public Works Director be appointed Director and Alternate Director to the
Suburban Rate Authority.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-5.
7. Resolution Authorizinq an Application for the 2005 Communitv
Development Block Grant Proqram.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated staff recommends that the City's 2005 application
include $167,000 for the purchase of property, relocation expenses and demolition of
property needed to complete the Gateway West Redevelopment Project.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
8. Approve Second Amendment to Section 8 Housinq Assistance Pavments
Proqram Contract for Administrative Services between the Citv of Fridlev
and the Metropolitan Council.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this is the second contract extension with the
Metropolitan Council for Section 8 administrative services. Since the Metropolitan
Council is still awaiting final word on funding for Section 8 housing, they are being very
cautious about renewing contracts with the agencies that provide administrative
services for them. This contract extension will run from January 1 until June 30, 2005.
Staff recommends Council's approval.
APPROVED.
9. Approve 2005 Animal Control Contract between the Citv of Fridlev and
Briqhton Veterinarv Hospital.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this is an extension of the existing contract at the same
cost as was incurred in 2004. For $1,300 a month, Brighton covers the cost of shelter,
feeding and medical care for the animals that are dropped off by representatives of the
Fridley Police Department. In 2004, they included 78 dogs, 48 cats, 1 ferret and 1
domestic rabbit. Staff recommends Council's approval.
APPROVED.
10. Receive Bids and Award Proposal for a Quint Aerial Fire Truck.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, explained that Fridley Fire Chief John Berg, Assistant Fire
Chief John Crelly, and other members of the Fridley Fire Department have been
working toward the replacement of their 1973 aerial truck. Replacement of the aerial
fire truck was one of eleven issues reviewed in last year's survey. The objective of the
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 4
Fire Department was to replace the aerial truck with a piece of equipment that could be
used more flexibly as both an aerial and a pumper, which is referred to as a"quint." As
they pursued the product, they also sought and received a federal FEMA grant of
$500,000 toward its purchase. With the grant in hand, they evaluated different trucks
from five manufacturers and ultimately wrote specifications. These specs were sent to
eight truck manufacturers and five equipment companies. Bids from four manufacturers
and two equipment companies were received on December 6 and the bids were
painstakingly evaluated.
Dr. Burns said that staff is recommending that the bid for the quint be awarded to
Crimson Fire at a cost of $700,911. Staff is also recommending that Council award the
equipment portion of the bid to Crimson Fire. The cost of the equipment and mounting
the equipment is $65,864. The equipment includes hand tools, hose adaptors, axes
and pry bars. Installation includes the attachment of mounting brackets for these tools
as well as SCBAs. The total bid award for the truck, equipment, and mounting of
equipment is $766,775. Staff also expects that the height of the bay door at Fire Station
1 may need to be modified to accommodate the new aerial truck at a cost of $30,000.
While the bid for the bay door alteration is not being awarded at this time, the number is
based on contractor quotes. Assuming Council's award of the bid, the truck will be
delivered on or about October 14. Staff will know whether or not the bay door must be
altered about three months prior to the truck's delivery. Staff recommends Council's
approval in awarding the bid to Crimson Fire at a cost of $766,775. This amount
compares with a budgeted amount of $750,000 in the 2005 General Capital
Improvements budget. The grant money was not included in the formal budget as a
revenue.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
11. Approve 2005 Citv Council and Staff appointments.
APPROVED.
12. Appointment — Citv Emplovee.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this appointment is for the Environmental Planner
position. Applications were recently solicited and interviews conducted for the position
vacated by Julie Jones. Fifty-nine applications were received and seven interviews
were held. Staff is recommending the appointment of Rachel Harris to the position of
Environmental Planner at a salary of $41,026.90 per year. Ms. Harris has most recently
been employed as Program Coordinator of Recycling and Home Improvement at the
Macalister-Groveland Community Council in St. Paul. She has also served as Interim
Director for this agency. Her professional association ties include membership on the
Steering Committee for the National Recycling Coalition. She is also the
Secretary/Treasurer for the Council of Recycling Manager. Rachel has a Bachelor's
Degree in geography with a heavy emphasis in urban planning from the University of
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 5
Minnesota. She is currently working on a Master's Degree in Organizational Leadership
at the College of St. Catherine's. Staff recommends Council's approval.
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF RACHEL HARRIS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNER POSITION.
13. Claims: (119673 —119895)
APPROVED.
14. Licenses.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
15. Estimates.
APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATE:
Ron Kassa Construction, Inc.
6005 — 250t" East
Elko, MN 55020
2004 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair
Project No. 355
Estimate No. 5 $ 493.99
Councilmember Bolkcom requested that Items 7 and 10 be removed from the consent
agenda for further discussion.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the consent agenda with the removal of Items 7 and 10 to the regular agenda.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the agenda with the addition of Items 7 and 10.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of items not on agenda (15 minutes).
There was no response from the audience under this item of business.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 6
7. Resolution Authorizinq an Application for the 2005 Communitv
Development Block Grant Proqram.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked why staff was not applying for the maximum amount of
$300, 000.
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, explained that staff submitted a solid
application. With the increased competitive nature of the CDBG program and the
increased critical oversight on the part of HUD, staff feels the application is supported
by a real project. They evaluated some of the other projects being considered, but the
priority list for Anoka County has become so narrow that it is focused on things like
affordable housing and redevelopment. There is $1.3 million to be divided.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt
Resolution No. 2005-6.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Receive Bids and Award Proposal for a Quint Aerial Fire Truck.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned what was included in loose equipment and asked
what the exact amount of the award was.
Mr. Berg, Fire Chief, stated the loose equipment would include the hose, ladders and a
number of items required by the FEMA grant to be on the vehicle.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the amount of the award is $766,775, which does not
include the $30,000 for the bay door alteration.
Mayor Lund asked if the specifications for the truck can be adjusted so the vehicle fits in
the garage.
Fire Chief Berg explained they are working very hard to do that. They believe the
vehicle they have selected will fit; however, the manufacturers will not guarantee it.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to
receive the bids and award the contract for the quint aerial fire truck to Crimson Fire in
the amount of $766,775.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 7
OLD BUSINESS:
16. Approve Contract Amendment between the Citv of Fridlev and Short Elliott
Hendrickson Inc. for the TH 65 Causewav Proiect (Tabled December 6,
2004)•
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to remove
this item from the table.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated this project began in 1999 after the new
Highway 65/Interstate 694 interchange project was constructed. Staff was looking at
extending that project up Highway 65 across the causeway through Moore Lake. Short
Elliot Hendrickson had been the designer for the interchange and had a large portion of
some of the initial survey work done and the City chose them to begin design of that
phase. At that time, there was state and federal funding available for bottlenecks and
other transportation related improvements and the City was able to obtain a grant from
the Department of Trade and Economic Development in the amount of $500,000
towards the preliminary and final design. The initial estimates put this project at about
$6 million. As the design went on they found that the $6 million estimate was probably
very low. MnDOT has a hard time getting such a project through their design approvals
without knowing the full funding source for construction. The intention was to have a
completed project on the shelf to be ready to push this project forward. Since that time,
there have been two contract amendments bringing the total for design up to $745,000.
The full project is probably $13 million plus project. The project is designed and ready
to go except for some final decisions of staging that will have to be decided at the time
of construction once the City has a funding source. Short Elliot Hendrickson sent the
City a letter requesting the additional final contract amendment and detailed some of the
things the City had asked them to work on for finalizing this project to this point. Short
Elliot Hendrickson has done a lot of work for the City. He believes the fees they are
asking for are justified. This will close this project out until there is a funding source
identified and the project can proceed.
Councilmember Barnette asked for an explanation of the project.
Mr. Haukaas said the Highway 65 design project was a vision to expand the Moore
Lake causeway from four lanes to six lanes, 3 lanes each direction. It would include a
pedestrian walkway/bikeway on the east side. It would also improve the intersection at
West Moore Lake Drive. This area was identified as a bottleneck. Over the years,
some of the focus on transportation has shifted and some of that money has dried up.
Short Elliott Hendrickson has organized all the data and information plans, will provide a
copy to the City, keep a copy in their archives, and provide a copy to MnDOT. The data
will be organized to the point that it can be picked up at any time in the future and
finished.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 8
Mayor Lund asked if these costs are reimbursable by the state.
Mr. Haukaas responded they are. The City can ask for them as part of the state aid
funding.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the final contract amendment in the amount of $95,231.97 for Short Elliot Hendrickson.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if this approval is for the $95,231.97 figure or the total
amount.
Mr. Haukaas explained approval of the $95,231.97 will bring us to the total amount of
the contract.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
17. Special Use Permit Request, SP #04-06, bv Anwar Abdel-Karim, Islamic
Center of Minnesota, to Amend their Existinq Special Use Permit to Allow a
School Expansion to be Used for Classrooms and a Multiple Purpose
Room, Subiect to Easement of Record, Generallv Located at 1401 Gardena
Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) (Tabled December 13, 2004).
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to remove
this item from the table.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated there are two items that have
been addressed by the architect since the last meeting. The first is the height of the
Phase II addition. The roof peak height caused the mid range height between the eve
and the ridge line to be higher than the 30 foot maximum. The architect has redesigned
the building so that the midpoint between the eve and the ridge line is 30 feet. The
other issue in terms of mitigation to neighbors is the fence line along the western edge
and southern edge of the new parking area. The architect has indicated that a
combination of fence and hedge is now being proposed along that area.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked for clarification on the height of Phase II.
Mr. Hickok explained on a typical type of two-story structure with a two-story wall, the
measurement would be taken from the grade to the top for the height. On the type of
building proposed for Phase II with a peaked roof, the height measurement is taken
between the mid point between the eve line and the ridge. At the last Council meeting,
the mid point measurement was 35 feet. The architect redesigned and flattened the
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 9
pitch of the building and reduced the height by five feet so the height is now 30 feet like
the R-1 district describes.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the curb cut that is currently on Gardena in front of AI-
Amal school be removed once Phase I has been completed.
Mr. Hickok stated he thought it was best to leave it. It is an infrastructure improvement
the Islamic Center made and it gets cars off the street.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that if they are trying to get away from some of
the traffic concerns on Gardena, they may want to get rid of the current curb cut once
there is a new main entrance to the building.
Mr. Hickok stated it is within the Council's purview to do that. There are, however,
going to be occasions when a parent is running late and wants to just drop off their
child, and the current curb cut gives them the opportunity to do that. It is the school's
mission to encourage parents to use the new drop-off location.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there was some discussion about sidewalks at previous
meetings and she asked if most schools provided sidewalks around the perimeter of
their property.
Mr. Hickok stated he believes a sidewalk does provide an important link. To the north,
there is an existing pathway in the area of Phase II which allows students to get to the
school without going down the Gardena Circle area and out onto Gardena. A walkway
is a reasonable thing to expect into a school ground. Every other school in Fridley has
either sidewalks or pathways making those connections.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there is anything in writing regarding the shared
arrangement with Totino-Grace and what it includes. She added she doesn't have any
problem with Phase I, but is concerned that Phase II is too far off. A lot of things can
change in this neighborhood. She is also concerned about parking as there are already
complaints about parking. With the addition of Phase II, she anticipated there would be
more activity and more conflicts with Totino Grace activities.
Councilmember Wolfe stated that at around 1:30 today there were four cars parked in
the no-parking zone and all of those people went to the AI-Amal School. He agreed that
Phase II is too far out and felt that the Council would be "green lighting" it.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Hickok to clarify the height of the privacy fencing being
proposed.
Mr. Hickok stated in the residential district, rear yard fencing can be as tall as 7 feet so
he expects that's what the height will be.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 10
Mayor Lund stated that one of the stipulations for a previously approved special use
permit on this site allowed for an 8 foot fence. He asked if that fence exists.
Mr. Hickok stated there is a privacy fence and he believes it is 8 feet high. Council
could request an 8 foot fence around the entire parking lot.
Mayor Lund asked about the 30 parking spaces that petitioner is requesting to show as
proof of parking only and how Council can force the installation of those parking spaces
if problems arise.
Mr. Hickok stated there is standard language in the code and it has been a standard
practice of this City to make it known to petitioners that any proof of parking shall be
installed at the request of Council if deemed necessary. If Council decides the 30
parking spaces are needed, it would be a very clean-cut process.
Mayor Lund asked about the overall height of the building in Phase II. He said that
Stipulation 10 states the maximum height shall not exceed 45 feet.
Mr. Hickok stated that previously the plans called for 49 feet in height. The architect
has now brought that down to 44 feet which puts the mid span at 30 feet.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he received an email questioning why the City is allowing
the Islamic Center expansion. They previously advised Totino-Grace not to purchase
property on Gardena because the school would have to use the property in a manner
consistent with the residential neighborhood. He believes they planned to use the area
for parking.
Councilmember Barnette said he believes the property they were considering was next
to the current day care center.
Mr. Hickok stated he is not aware of the situation Councilmember Wolfe is referring to,
nor does he recall staff making such a recommendation. He added that it is not good
practice to locate parking across the street from a school.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the City has ever approved a master plan similar to
this.
Mr. Hickok stated the United Methodist Church came to Fridley in 1967 with an original
master plan then came in ten years later with the first phase of that development. It is
not uncommon for individuals who rely on fundraising to proceed with their projects to
set out the project ahead of time. Staff recommends in such situations that the
petitioner not surprise them with additional phases later.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she understands that the school needs to have a plan
to seek funding, but she is having a hard time with approving the entire plan at this time
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 11
when Phase II may not proceed for five or more years. She believes there should be
stipulations to protect the school and the neighborhood.
Mr. Hickok said State law allows Council to go back and review the special use permit
but requires that they do so on a regular basis. If there are some issues with Phase I,
Council can bring back the special use permit at any time to reevaluate it.
Councilmember Wolfe asked what Council can do if after approving this special use
permit they decide that they are unhappy with some portion of the plan.
Mr. Hickok responded Council must be careful about that distinction because petitioner
needs to have some comfort and certainty that they will be able to build the project as
approved. The issues Council could legitimately call into question would be things like
mitigating features the Council had not anticipated. It would be incumbent upon the City
to demonstrate why what was approved five years ago is no longer acceptable. The
City must create a record that demonstrates why the plan will not work. The record
must be justified and legally supported.
Councilmember Wolfe commented that he would rather see Council approve Phase I
only at this time.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that Totino-Grace intends to continue growing
and was concerned that Phase II of the petitioner's plan will take away a lot of the green
space currently used by Totino-Grace for playing fields.
Mr. Hickok explained that the playing fields do not go away at full build-out, as they are
on the upper east side of the property. Also, AI-Amal School wants to keep green
space for their students.
Dr. Burns asked if traffic becomes a problem as predicted, could Council bring back the
special use permit and deny Phase II.
Mr. Hickok stated if Phase I does cause environmental impacts that Council was not
anticipating, not only could the Council come back and modify the stipulations for Phase
I, but it would influence what Phase II is about.
Councilmember Wolfe stated approving Phase I and Phase II now, puts the burden of
proof on the Council. If Phase II is not approved, Council could see how Phase I works
and then approve or deny Phase II.
Mayor Lund said it is his understanding that Council would have to have defensible
reasons now and/or in the future to say yes or no to the petitioner. Council has the
burden of proof now.
Councilmember Billings asked the difference between a permitted use, a use permitted
with a special use permit and a non-permitted use.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 12
Mr. Hickok explained that a permitted use meets all of the defined boundaries in a
district and simply needs a building permit. A special use is one that also is permitted in
the district but there are mitigating features that do not exist with the standard permitted
uses. Opportunities exist within the code to allow things such as a private school to
exist in a residential district. Non-permitted uses are those that are not listed in the
district and are not available for development in that district.
Councilmember Billings said it is his understanding that a property owner is entitled to
proceed with any use allowed as a special use but must come to the City and get
approval. A private school is a permitted use with a special use permit so it is the
responsibility of Council, if they deny this request, to demonstrate why. Council can
only turn it down if it is determined to be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of
the City. If this is accurate, why is the petitioner even before Council.
Mr. Hickok explained that any time there is a change that would cause Council to want
to review the project for additional mitigating features, it must come back to Council so
those people who may be affected can express their concerns and, if necessary,
additional stipulations may be imposed. Although, technically, they already have a
special use permit, staff thought it would be in the best interests of the residents and
Council to evaluate whether additional stipulations are needed.
Councilmember Billings said staff that this was a significant enough change in the way
they are using it that it was best reviewed by Council. If Petitioner goes ahead with
Phase II and there are certain considerations that have developed in the meantime, at
that time, staff would take it upon themselves to bring it back to the City Council. What
we are doing right now is exactly what we are saying could happen in the future. He
asked if any of the Fridley schools would have to come before Council for an expansion
of their special use permit.
Mr. Hickok stated, no, because they are properly zoned in a P District.
Councilmember Billings asked if the AI-Amal school is properly zoned in an R-1 District.
Mr. Hickok stated it is.
Councilmember Billings stated if this were still the Gardena School, it would be zoned P
and they could expand without Council approval.
Mr. Hickok stated that is correct.
Councilmember Wolfe commented that in his opinion, even though the school is already
there, the changes being proposed would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Billings stated if anyone is going to vote against this, it is up to them to
be able to demonstrate how it is going to change the character of the neighborhood.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 13
Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, said there would have to be a factual basis or expert
testimony that such a change would impact the neighborhood.
Councilmember Bolkcom expressed concern about approving a master plan for this site
and questioned how Council can determine at this point whether or not Phase II will be
a detriment when it is going to be built at some point in the future. She asked whether
the proposed 45-foot height of the building in Phase II could be considered as an
example of something that would impact the neighborhood.
Mr. Knaak stated ideally there would need to be some kind of concrete evidence that
such a height would negatively impact the neighborhood. The fact that the neighbors
do not like the height would not serve as proper factual basis.
Mr. Hickok stated staff asked the City Assessor and found out that there is no example
of this or any other school expansion causing a detrimental impact on property values in
the City of Fridley. Typically schools are an attribute and make properties more
desirable.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked where there was an existing school in Fridley that
matches the height of the proposed building in Phase II.
Mr. Hickok stated Grace Evangelical Church is almost that exact height except it has a
flat roof. The Phase II building is designed specifically so that there is a raised area for
the gymnasium ceiling, but they did not go up the full two-story height. They tried to
provide a more aesthetic roof design that fits in a residential setting.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated typically a special use permit proceeds within the first
year of approval and asked if approving Phase II would constitute an exception.
Mr. Knaak stated the law says that the petitioner must start the use within a year but
there is no end time. Council can control the end time or regulate the schedule of the
project as a part of the permitting process. Council can make a condition, as Council
has done in this instance, by suggesting petitioner provide a second phase plan and by
insisting that petitioner will provide for parking and other items.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented there is a huge burden put on the City and City
staff with all the stipulations for all the special use permits all over the City.
Councilmember Wolfe asked why parking continues to happen on the street when
Council has been told it would not happen any more.
Mr. Anwar Abdul-Karim, Vice President of the Islamic Center, stated over the past
couple of weeks, they have monitored the traffic on Gardena and determined that the
traffic to AI-Amal School is very minimal. There may be occasions when parents park in
the drop-off zone to pick up a sick student. School staff has called the police many
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 14
times about cars parked in the drop-off area and they have spoken to parents to try and
alleviate this problem.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that the traffic and parking issues around this
school are not new concerns. She was concerned that these problems will continue
once the new addition is built and be a burden for the City to deal with.
Mr. Dean Dovolis, Project Architect, explained they presented the two-phase plan to be
honest with the City about the intent of the plan and what the eventual build-out would
look like. The classrooms and the gymnasium are both equally essential to the school
and petitioner does not want to put the second phase in jeopardy by having that pulled
out of the agreement. Phase II will have less of an impact with regards to parking.
When it is fully built out, the AI-Amal school will use the least amount of land, only 13%,
which is less than any other similar facility. Since approval of Phase II is an issue, they
could change their approach and try to build the entire addition at one time. He said
that in the R-1 zoning, someone could build a house 45 feet high. Their preference
would be to keep this as a two-phase project.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if a home could be built to the 45 foot height.
Mr. Hickok said a house could be built that high using the same formula that is being
used for the Phase II building.
Mr. Naeem Qureshi, President of the Islamic Center, stated they met with several
neighbors last week to discuss this project and some of their concerns were addressed.
Mr. Richard Young, 5695 Quincy, stated when Gardena Elementary was there that was
a neighborhood school. The current neighborhood is basically the same and no
sidewalks have ever existed. If sidewalks were installed, he asked who would bear the
responsibility for the cost.
Mr. Hickok stated the sidewalk being discussed was actually coming in from the Woody
Lane/Hillcrest neighborhood across private property owned by the school itself. The
sidewalk would be put in and maintained at the petitioner's expense. There would be
no expectation that there be additional sidewalks along the street unless it became a
City issue at a later date.
Mayor Lund added if a sidewalk were to be installed along Gardena, the Islamic Center
would be responsible for the portion along their property and the other property owners
would be assessed for the portion of the sidewalk along their property.
Mr. Mark Dougherty, 1423 Gardena Avenue, stated he lives two doors east of the
Islamic Center and it was his email that Councilmember Wolfe referred to earlier in the
meeting. He is concerned about the house next to him being torn down for Phase II to
allow for a parking lot and asked if stipulations could be added to help protect his
property.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 15
Mr. David Hamernick, 1340 Hillcrest Drive, stated he commends the Council, Mayor and
staff because they already answered most of the questions he had. However, he stated
he has not heard any discussion regarding the noise from this site with a base line for
current conditions versus future conditions. He recommended staff take a look at that.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Hamernick what noises he anticipates will be
generated by the school that are not already there now.
Mr. Hamernick said construction noise would be one issue but another concern would
be noise from future events and traffic noise.
Mayor Lund questioned what the noise ordinance is for the City.
Mr. Hickok explained that ordinance pertains to a sustained noise over a certain period
of time with different day time and night time readings. Staff has, on occasion, taken a
reading to see if certain activities exceed those decibels. Typically noise issues involve
industry noise, loud whistles, sustained screeching or fan motors.
Mayor Lund added there are also regulations to control the noise during the
construction phase by restricting the hours.
Mr. David Jones, 1873 Stinson Boulevard, stated he is concerned about the building
proposed for Phase II as it does resemble a mosque. Mosques in other areas of the
world have very loud speakers and he asked that there be a stipulation added to
address this.
Councilmember Wolfe stated there are no plans to put a mosque on this site. The
Islamic Center currently has a mosque in Columbia Heights.
Mayor Lund stated if at some point in the future they wanted to use the proposed
building as a mosque, they would have to come before the Council for approval.
Councilmember Barnette stated he has given this special use permit a great deal of
thought and he believes that some of the criticism that was directed towards the Islamic
Center has been alleviated. He sees six different points of contention; parking, lot
coverage, two phases, drainage and ponding, traffic, and the long-term effect on the
neighborhood. He commented on several developments in and around his home in
Fridley where neighbors had very similar concerns. All of these developments turned
out to be good for the City of Fridley in spite of the noise and traffic issues that resulted.
As far as the parking concerns, he believes the petitioner's parking plans are a positive
change to move some of the parking off the street onto their property. Petitioner has
offered to provide screening for homes adjacent to the proposed parking. He said he
does have concerns about the size of the second phase. As for the drainage and
ponding issues, the proposal includes a detention pond which will have little or no water
most of the time. Because of the traffic concerns expressed by neighbors, he watched
the traffic around the AI-Amal School site on three different week days and did not see a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 16
huge traffic problem. At the Planning Commission meeting someone made the
comment that the AI-Amal students do drive to school but park off-site, he has seen no
evidence of that. He stated his final question on this matter would be "Is this special
use permit a good thing for children?" His answer is "Yes, it is." In conclusion, he
stated he has spent many hours on this matter and in good conscience he can find no
reason to deny this request.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he agrees with Councilmember Barnette to a certain
extent, but he still has concerns, particularly with proposed development in the area
around AI-Amal and the impact that will have. Traffic is a concern to him, especially
when there are only three exit points from that neighborhood to Central Avenue. He
stated he thinks this proposal is too big and will change the characteristics of the
neighborhood. He would have no problem with the classrooms proposed for Phase I,
but Phase II is just too big.
Mayor Lund stated it is much easier for him to say "no" because of the people in the
neighborhood, but in this case the petitioner has met the burden of proof and therefore
prevails. The Council does have the ability, if there are defensible reasons, to deny
Phase II at some point in the future. He added that if the property were zoned P, the
petitioner would not have to appear before the Council to proceed with the expansion.
He had some concerns about Phase II, but those have been addressed. They
minimized the roof height and lowered it by five feet after the previous Council meeting.
Petitioner has listened to the neighbors and tried to address some of their concerns. He
plans to recommend additions to the stipulations including that No. 7 be changed to
require a privacy fence as well as landscaping along the west and south property line.
Also, if Phase II proceeds and the existing home is removed, he would ask that a
privacy fence and landscaping be used as buffer along Mr. Dougherty's property.
Referring to Stipulation 10, Mayor Lund stated it should state "not to exceed 44 feet and
no greater than 30 feet at mid-point." He also has some concerns about parking, but he
does agree with the petitioner's plans to not install all the required parking at this time
since Council can request that those 30 parking spots be added if parking becomes a
problem. He believes that many of the issues have been addressed and the applicant
is trying to be a good neighbor. He is inclined to vote in favor of this master plan given
the facts that Council now has and the ability to review it at some point in the future.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she cannot support this special use permit. She would
support the plan, if it was Phase I only and they came back for approval on Phase II.
She would like to see the impact of the first phase before approving the second phase.
She said she does not make her decisions based on whether or not Council will be
sued, but on what she thinks is right. Petitioner has been very good about the
neighbors' concerns, but she believes there is a huge burden being put upon future City
Councils by approving this. She was also concerned about the parking and believed
that if Council does approve this, petitioner should put in all the required parking.
Councilmember Billings stated there were some comments made by neighbors at a
previous meeting that the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of this
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 17
request because they were afraid of potential lawsuits. He does not believe that is an
accurate characterization. He pointed out that the Mayor and Councilmember Barnette
just took their oath of office at the beginning of tonight's meeting and swore to uphold
the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution, the Fridley City Charter and the City's
laws. Those laws provide property rights to people who own property. They provide
zoning codes that tell people what they can do with their property. Those laws are there
not just to protect the people living in single family housing, but all property owners so
all property owners have a reasonable expectation of what they can do with their
property. If this were a situation where someone wanted to build a very large house in
the midst of very small homes, we would find it to be equally out of place, but that is the
right of the person who owns the property. If the zoning requirements are met, Council
is obligated to allow them to do what they can reasonably expect to do with their land.
The alternative is for this or some other governmental body that does not wish to allow
this to take the property and make it public property or redevelop it. The City is not in a
position to take the petitioner's property nor is he suggesting the City would want to do
that, but the City Council is here to protect the rights of every property owner in the City.
There have been concerns raised about traffic, but there has been no demonstration
that the expansion will have a major increase in the traffic to and from this site. Council
cannot hold this property owner hostage because of the amount of traffic on Central
Avenue or because of the proposed townhouse development in the area or because of
Medtronic or because of potential activity by Totino-Grace. The petitioner is being very
forthright and very honest with the City and the surrounding residents. Typical single
family housing can cover approximately 60% of their lot with buildings while this
petitioner is only covering 13% of their property with buildings. If the AI-Amal School
was not on this site and the property were divided into single family housing there would
be a lot less green space than what the petitioner will have. He stated he cannot see
anything that has been presented to Council that even comes close to having a serious
detrimental effect on the health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, he cannot find
anything in the laws of this state, nation and city that gives Council the permission or
authority to vote against this particular project. He does not like to make the neighbors
or the petitioner unhappy, but being on the Council is not a job where you can always
make everybody happy. He feels very strongly that he does not have any choice but to
support this special use permit application.
Councilmember Wolfe stated if this is approved, he would like to see the existing curb
cut on Gardena removed.
Councilmember Barnette and Councilmember Billings indicated they would object to
that.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to deny
Special Use Permit SP #04-06 for the Islamic Center.
UPON A VOICE VOTE WITH MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE AND
COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS VOTING NAY AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE AND
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 18
COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION FAILED.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to approve
Special Use Permit, SP #04-06, for the Islamic Center with eleven stipulations and with
nineteen previously approved stipulations.
MOTION Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to change
Stipulation 10 by striking the words "45 feet" and adding the words "zoning code R-1
requirements" so that it reads "The maximum height of either addition shall not exceed
zoning code R-1 requirements."
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
TO REVISE STIPULATION 10 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Lund asked if any of the previously approved stipulations are in conflict with the
new stipulations for SP #04-06.
Mr. Hickok stated that staff reviewed all stipulations, did not find any conflict, and
believe they work well as an entire package.
MOTION by Mayor Lund, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to change Stipulation
7 to insert a requirement for landscape hedges and a privacy fence along the west and
south property lines when abutting a single family residence. If Phase II is built, that a
privacy fence be erected along the east property line where it abuts a single family
residence.
There was some discussion about the height of the fence. Mayor Lund indicated he
would like to see the applicant work that out with the neighbors, but recommended a
maximum height of 8 feet.
After some discussion Mayor Lund and Councilmember Barnette withdrew the motion
and the second.
MOTION by Mayor Lund, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to add Stipulation 12
as follows "In the event that Phase II results in the demolition of any houses, then a
hedge, privacy fence, or other landscaping may be required to be constructed or
provided by the applicant upon the request of the City."
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
TO APPROVE STIPULATION 12 CARRIED ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned previous Stipulation 16 should list the address of
the property rather than the name of the property owner.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 19
Councilmember Billings stated that is the language previously approved by the City
Council as a part of the special use permit and he did not think prior stipulations should
be changed.
Councilmember Billings asked the petitioner if he has any problem with the changes
made in the stipulations.
Mr. Abdul-Karim indicated they had no objections.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP
#04-06 WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, MAYOR LUND,
COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, AND COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS VOTING AYE
AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING
NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
STIPULATIONS:
1. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements.
3. Existing building and proposed Phase I and II to be sprinkled to MN Rules,
Chapter 1306.
4. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan
prior to issuance of building permits.
5. Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement prior to issuance
of a building permit.
6. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance
of building permit.
7. Petitioner to provide landscaped hedges and up to an 8 foot privacy fence
along the west and south side property lines, when a parking area is
abutting a single family residence.
8. Curb cut and corresponding drive aisle off of Gardena shall be widened to
30 feet.
9. All lighting on the property shall be shielded and downcast and shall not
exceed 3 foot candles at the property line.
10. The maximum height of either addition shall not exceed 44 feet, nor shall
the building height exceed 30 feet at the midspan between the eave and the
ridge.
11. When Phase II is constructed, existing parking now shown as proof of
parking shall be installed.
12. In the event Phase II results in the demolition of any houses, a hedge,
privacy fence or other landscaping may be required to be constructed or
provided by the applicant upon request of the City.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 20
STIPULATIONS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED:
1. A masonry dumpster enclosure with wooden gates shall be installed by
August 1, 1989. (SP #88-17)
2. The property owner shall combine individual lots into one tax parcel as
requested by the City Assessor (buildable lots abutting Hillcrest Drive and
Oakwood Manor shall be exempted). (SP #88-17)
3. If the agreement between Islamic Center and Totino Grace High School
ceases to exist, the Center shall at that time apply for a special use permit
to expand their parking lot to meet the zoning requirements. (SP #88-17)
4. Church services shall occur in the library and gymnasium only. (SP #88-
17)
5. All existing hard surFace areas shall be improved with seal coating, curb
and gutter and striping by August 1, 1989. (SP #88-17)
6. Programmed activities shall not exceed the parking space available on site
and at Totino-Grace. In addition, the Center's programmed activities shall
not conflict with those of Totino-Grace's which would cause a shortage of
parking space. (SP #88-17)
7. The property owner shall take care of the weed problem by August 1, 1989.
(SP #88-17)
8. All drop-off and pick-up of children shall occur on the premises. (SP #89-
06)
9. The day care hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. (SP #89-06)
10. The building shall meet the requirements of the State Daycare Regulations,
the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code, including the
following:
a. An enclosed outdoor play area adjacent to the facility, but located at
the rear of the building.
b. Outside exits from the daycare rooms.
c. Fire alarms in each daycare room and in the hallway outside the
daycare rooms. (SP #89-06)
11. The Islamic Center shall modify the parking lot as illustrated on the
modified site plan prepared by staff and shown on Page 4H of this agenda
as Plan A. (SP #89-06)
12. The petitioner shall complete stipulations #1, #2, #5, and #7 from SP
#88-17;
a. A masonry dumpster enclosure with wooden gates shall be installed
by August 1, 1989.
b. The property owner shall combine individual lots into one tax parcel,
as requested by the City Assessor (buildable lots abutting Hillcrest
Drive and Oakwood Manor shall be exempted.)
c. All existing hard surFace areas shall be improved with seal coating,
curb and gutter and striping by August 1, 1989.
d. The property owner shall take care of the weed problem by August 1,
1989. (SP #89-06)
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 21
13. The dumpster and enclosure shall be located at the northwest corner of the
building. (SP #89-06)
14. The grass between the existing driveway and the fence shall be maintained
in a neat appearance. (SP #89-06)
15. The property owner shall maintain grass on a regular basis in compliance
with the height maximum established in the weed ordinance. (SP #89-06)
16. The property owner shall install an eight foot fence along the east of the
Foco's property from the rear of the Foco's garage to 40 feet north and a
six foot fence on the remaining east lot line and on the north lot line of the
Foco's property. The property owner shall work with City staff to develop a
landscape plan to be implemented during the next three planning seasons.
(SP #89-06)
17. That a variance is approved to increase the height of this fence to eight feet
due to the hardship on the adjacent residential property. (SP #89-06)
18. This special use permit shall be reviewed by City staff for compliance at 6,
12, 18 and 24 months from the date the daycare center begins operation
and a report submitted to the Council for those reviews. (SP #89-06)
19. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 100
square feet of useable daycare floor area. (SP #02-03)
NEW BUSINESS:
18. First Readinq of an Ordinance Amendinq Chapter 30, Chapter 603 and
Chapter 606 of the Fridlev Citv Code Pertaininq to Lawful Gamblinq.
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, said at the request of Councilmember Billings, staff
reviewed the City Code pertaining to lawful gambling to allow all lawful gambling
organizations in the City to conduct any lawful gambling or use any lawful gambling
device that is allowed by Minnesota State Statutes within certain licensed
establishments. The proposed changes would affect Chapter 30 which outlines the
definition of lawful gambling. The changes would expand the definition to include those
forms of gambling allowed by Minnesota State statutes. Also Chapter 603 and 606
dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquor would be amended to allow all licensed local
gambling organizations to conduct lawful gambling allowed by Minnesota statutes.
These proposed changes have been prepared with the intent of putting businesses
licensed by the City to conduct lawful gambling on equal ground with one another. The
proposed changes have been reviewed by staff and the City Attorney.
Councilmember Billings explained there are two reasons he asked staff to take a look at
this matter. One of the reasons is that 15 or 20 years ago the State of Minnesota
decided to allow pull-tabs and charitable gambling and made a requirement that the
cities make a provision for these activities. The City Council, at that time, chose to allow
fraternal organizations to continue using any type of gambling device that was legal
before that. The Council also chose to only allow pull-tabs sales in on-sale liquor
establishments that were not fraternal organizations. The thinking was they would like
to have not allowed them anywhere because they did not want to proliferate gambling.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 22
With charitable gambling, casino gambling, the lottery and other gambling activities in
many locations, on-sale liquor sites are at a disadvantage because they can only do
pull-tab sales. The proposed amendment would give the on-sale liquor establishments
the same authority as the fraternal organizations. In addition, Council never envisioned
a situation in which one of the City's fraternal organizations would want to bring in an
organization to do charitable gambling for them. Although it is not specifically prohibited
by City ordinances and it is staff's position that it can be done, the proposed
amendment clearly states that it is allowable, so there will be no question about it in the
future.
Mayor Lund stated he believes the proposed amendment resolves concerns that have
been raised.
Councilmember Barnette said he would like to get some feedback from the fraternal
organizations regarding this proposed change.
Councilmember Billings stated he has not talked to the clubs. He pointed out that the
on-sale liquor establishments pay a lot more in license fees to the City than the clubs
do.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated in 603.24.2(D), there should be an apostrophe in the
word "organizations."
Mayor Lund questioned if the third sentence in 603.24.2(D) should be changed to read
"and any additional violations within a 12 month period," and in the same sentence the
word "may" should be changed to "shall also be considered."
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to waive
the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
19. Resolution in Support of an Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gamblinq
Premise Permit for the Italian American Club Foundation, Inc., at the Fridlev
American Leqion Post 303 Located at 7365 Central Avenue N.E. (Ward 2).
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated the American Legion has decided that they would
like the Italian American Club to conduct charitable gambling on their premises and
Chapter 606 of the City Ordinance does not prohibit this. Staff has reviewed this
request.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt
Resolution No. 2005-7.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 23
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
20. Resolution Approvinq Desiqn Plans, Landscape Restoration Plan and
Orderinq Advertisement for Bids; Sprinqbrook Creek Restoration Proiect
No. 358.
Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated the Springbrook Wetland Restoration Project is
a multi-jurisdictional grant project that began in June 2002. The last item before the
Council related to the expansion of the pond on University Avenue to reduce the volume
of water reaching the east inlet for the Springbrook stream. In addition to that project,
the wetlands have been drained in the Springbrook Nature Center to allow plants to
regrow in those areas and reestablish the seed bank. Now that those two parts of the
project have been completed, they need to address the erosion that has occurred along
the stream. To accomplish this, a 48-inch bypass pipe will be installed along the stream
bed. The main reason this matter is before Council is that the pipe installation will
involve the removal of a significant number of trees. The City has a tree preservation
code which requires approval of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation
Commission and the City Council before trees can be removed from City-owned
property. The code also requires that the land be restored to its original condition which
becomes tricky in this situation because part of the intent of this project is to change the
condition of the Nature Center to improve the wetlands. Removal of the trees is not
expected to harm wildlife in this area in the short-term. There will be some planting to
prevent line of sight open views. The streambed itself will also be re-vegetated. They
are planning to plant trees and shrubbery in key locations.
Mr. St. Clair, Springbrook Nature Center Director, reviewed pictures of the area and
explained that the area where the trees will be removed is about 40 to 50 feet wide.
The kind of trees being removed are cottonwood, aspen, willows and elms.
Ms. Jones explained the Springbrook Watershed Project design committee approved
this portion of the project at their December 1 meeting. The Parks & Recreation
Commission approved the design and restoration plan at their December meeting and
the Planning Commission approved the restoration plan at their December 15 meeting.
Staff recommends Council's approval. She then reviewed the landscape plan for this
project.
Councilmember Wolfe asked if Council's approval of this request will be for the tree
removal related to this project only.
Ms. Jones stated that is correct.
Mayor Lund asked what will be done to protect the new plantings.
Mr. St. Clair said with just a few specific areas planted with new trees, they can put
fencing around them to protect them for the first few years. They could not do this along
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 24
the entire corridor as it would be extremely expensive and visually disruptive for visitors
for a long time.
Councilmember Billings asked how many of the trees are larger than 7 inches in
diameter.
Mr. St. Clair said the majority of the trees were smaller.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. St. Clair if he thought this was a good project.
Mr. St. Clair stated this is the best plan for regenerating the stream bed and is the most
positive thing that can be done for the Nature Center site.
Councilmember Billings asked if any other alternatives were looked at; such as routing
this pipe up to 85t" through the ditch and back down so trees would not have to be
destroyed in the process.
Ms. Jones stated that was one of the first proposals the engineering consultant
discussed but it was a very costly alternative and was not feasible because of the
elevation of the land. There has been a great deal of work done to study the elevations
in this area and what would physically work the best to direct the water. This is the
alternative they came up with.
Mr. Haukaas explained that normally they would schedule bid openings for such a
project a week before a Council meeting, but due to the tight time constraints the bid
opening will be held the same day as the next Council meeting on January 24. If there
are any abnormalities in the bid, they would have to delay award, otherwise it will be
brought to Council that night.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt
Resolution No. 2005-8.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
21. Variance Request, VAR #04-14, bv St. Philip's Lutheran Church, to Increase
the Maximum Square Footaqe of a Free-Standinq Siqn from 32 Square Feet
to 78 Square Feet, Generallv Located at 6180 Hiqhwav 65 N.E. (Ward 2).
Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated the petitioner is Howard Hogan with St. Philip's
Lutheran Church and they are seeking a variance to increase the size of a free-standing
sign from 32 square feet to 78 square feet. The subject property is zoned R-3, General
Multiple Dwelling District. The property is surrounded by C-3, General Shopping, to the
north and the east, single family residential to the west and Moore Lake to the south.
The church has been located on this property since 1958 and has two access points;
one on West Moore Lake Drive and one on Highway 65. There is some sign permit
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 25
history to this property. They have had two free-standing sign permits in the past; one
permit was obtained in 1978 for the existing corner monument sign and they had a
temporary sign permit in 1994 for the sign on Highway 65. That temporary sign should
have been removed when the temporary permit expired and a second temporary sign
was erected but has now been removed. As far as what is permitted, the City Code
allows a church in a residential zone to have an institutional sign of up to 32 square feet.
They are also allowed to have the existing corner monument sign stay with the
additional pylon sign, provided they change the lettering to only include the address.
This property is also allowed to have one wall sign up to three square feet in size.
Ms. Jones explained that staff researched past history and possible similar cases. They
found two other churches in Fridley located on busy thoroughfares that applied for
variances on signage. In 1993, Grace Evangelical on 73rd Avenue applied for a
variance for a 40-square foot sign, and that request was denied by Council. In 2000,
Woodcrest Baptist Church on University Avenue applied for a variance to erect a 70-
square foot sign. That request was also denied. Staff also researched what other cities
allow in similar circumstances for a church in a residential district. They found that most
cities do not allow more than 32 square feet for a free-standing sign. She reviewed a
site plan for the property and stated the petitioner is proposing to place the sign at the
corner of West Moore Lake Drive and Highway 65. In order for Council to approve such
a variance, four conditions must be met according to City Code:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the
intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity
and district.
Petitioner argues that their extraordinary circumstances are that the church is
located on a corner that is primarily commercial and those commercial properties
are allowed to have larger signs. Staff argues that the church property is highly
visible on the corner. Staff did not find any unique physical features to the
property to justify a hardship.
2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
district, but which is denied the property in question.
Staff looked at other church properties in the city and has not found a similar
situation where a sign variance has been granted. Also the church still has the
opportunity to provide visible signage without a variance.
3. That the strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship.
Staff argues that a 32-foot pylon sign could easily be viewed from the highway
and would be permitted without a variance.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 26
4. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or
district in which the property is located.
The petitioner has argued that the sign would not be detrimental to the residential
area to the west of their property. However, staff feels a larger sign could be
viewed from the residential properties, particularly if it is an electronic reader-
board sign. Staff also contends that a larger sign could create some visual
pollution in the area. Staff feels this is one of the most scenic routes through the
City heading southbound on Highway 65 with the view of West Moore Lake
Drive, and a larger sign could inhibit those views.
Ms. Jones said the Appeals Commission recommended denial of this variance at their
December 8 meeting. The motion carried on a 4 to 1 vote. Staff recommends
concurrence with the Appeals Commission. If Council chooses to approve the variance,
staff recommends that the following stipulations be attached:
1. All the temporary signs located on the property shall be removed immediately
and this property shall be subject to the sign code standards for temporary signs.
2. Existing corner, brick monument sign will be modified to remove name of church
and only contain the address of the property.
3. The minimum height from the bottom of the new pylon sign and the finished
ground grade will be ten feet or the sign will be placed at least 25' back from all
property lines.
4. No additional pylon signs are allowed on this site.
5. This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur:
a. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change
of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements.
b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled.
c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled.
d. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into
compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of
the sign and its structure shall be removed.
e. Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, upon the change of the name of
the business being displayed on this sign.
Councilmember Wolfe stated this is a busy intersection and he has no problem with the
petitioner's proposal. He thought it would be good for the City to allow St. Philip's to
advertise the community services they offer.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned the hardship in this case.
Mr. Howard Haugen, President of St. Philip's Lutheran Church, stated they believe they
have met the criteria required for this variance. They do not believe that staff's report
adequately sets forth the church's position. They are uniquely situated as they are
located on residentially zoned property, but all the property around them is zoned
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 27
commercial. Staff's report did not say that those locations are allowed 80 square-foot
signs while the church is limited to 32 square feet. They have seven acres of property
with two lots. They contend that there is not any other church in Fridley that is similarly
situated. The two churches staff referred to, Grace Evangelical and Woodcrest Baptist,
have no commercial signs in the area as St. Philip's does. He said one homeowner to
the west had planned to attend this evening's meeting to support St. Philip's request but
was unable to attend. He presented a letter from Miller Funeral Home supporting their
request. He then presented pictures of the Woodcrest Baptist Church and Grace
Evangelical Church pointing out that there are no commercial signs around either of
those locations. He stated they do not believe any other church in Fridley is similarly
situated as St. Philip's and, therefore, Council should not be concerned with setting a
precedent. He then referred to the Appeals Commission minutes pointing out that
Commissioner Sielaff spoke strongly in support of St. Philip's request. Two other
Appeals Commission members spoke about not wanting to set a precedent and
preferred to allow Council to review the matter. He agrees that the church is visible, but
what they are trying to do is set forth some of the mission, ministry and programs they
have at St. Philip's. At the present time, they are not able to broadcast those programs
on a 32 square foot sign.
Mr. Allen Spitzer, 826 — 86t" Lane N.W., Chairman of the Property and Grounds
Commission for St. Philip's, stated the 32 square foot sign allowed by City ordinance
would give them room for only one large text at 32 inches tall or one to three lines of 10
inch text. It allowed for the words "St. Philip's" across the top and a 12 inch band that
was backlit. The 78 square foot sign they are requesting would give them a four by nine
foot message center with the flexibility to have one 42 inch line of text or anywhere
between one and four lines of text with nine inch letters. There is a huge difference
between the 32 square foot sign and the 78 square foot sign as far as the ability to get
their message out without abbreviating too much. Also, the commercial signs in the
area would dwarf the 32 square foot sign. The larger sign will make it easier for them to
get their message out about the programs they offer.
Councilmember Wolfe stated there is one other church that would be similar and that is
St. William's.
Mr. Haugen commented they are not located right on University but are actually a block
off. Also the zoning around St. Philip's is commercial. He added that the Moore Lake
Commons sign to the east of their property is a 240 square foot sign. He stated they
are not asking for any special privileges but simply want to be treated as their
commercial neighbors have been treated. There is no opposition to their request from
any of the surrounding property owners. This sign will be an asset to the community.
Pastor Ryan Brodin, Pastor, St. Philip's Lutheran Church, stated St. Philip's is open
seven days a week, fourteen hours a day, to many different groups, including groups
that enhance the community such as Alcoholics Anonymous, AlAnon, Gamblers
Anonymous, a women's support group, an adult day care, a preschool and an after
school program for middle school students. They also provide $3,000 in aid and have a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 28
food shelf for people in need. He stated they have heard very often that people coming
from Interstate 694 who are not familiar with the community have driven right past the
church. The sign they are seeking approval for would not only help identify St. Philip's
but would let people know all the community services they offer.
Councilmember Billings questioned how all of these things can be listed on the sign.
Pastor Brodin explained they plan to have an electronic sign where the message can be
changed.
Mr. Greg Rosholt, 482 Rice Creek Terrace, explained that the homeowner immediately
to the west, Kim Sampson, asked him to speak on her behalf and explain that she is in
favor of the sign.
Mr. Ed Hamernik, 6740 Monroe Street N.E., stated the church is doing a lot of
community service and the sign would vastly improve their ability to get their message
out.
Mayor Lund stated his concern is that allowing this variance would open the door to any
R-3 property owner making such a request. He stated he does not have any problem
with the sign they are presenting but he is concerned that granting an exception in this
case would set a precedent.
Mr. Haugen stated they are not a residential property. They may be located in
residential zoning, but this is a church located on a busy highway which in no way
compares to a residential home in the midst of other residential homes. Council can
justify its decision by saying they have to consider these matters on a case by case
basis. St. Philip's Church sits on a 7-acre site with a sign proposed in the far corner of
their property. They are surrounded by commercial signs. He does not believe this is a
negative precedent.
Mayor Lund asked how AMF Bowling ended up with a 96 square foot sign.
Ms. Jones stated the permit on file with the City indicates the sign is 80 square feet.
Mayor Lund referred to the Appeals Commission discussion about possibly rezoning St.
Philip's property and asked what the negatives would be.
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated one of the tests for a rezoning is
what it is adjacent to. The City's Comprehensive Plan typically shows that zoning
designations make a break at major roadways, and this quadrant of the intersection is
residential. The adjacent properties to the west are residential and to introduce
commercial zoning to that quadrant of the intersection would contradict standard zoning
policies. Residents around Moore Lake have expressed a great deal of concern about
the amount of light in that area and intensifying this quadrant would change the
character of that neighborhood. There would be reflection off the water of commercial
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 29
entities that could be introduced to the neighborhood. Right now, St. Philip's has a very
nice site.
Mayor Lund pointed out there is residential to the west of Miller Funeral home and
commercial and residential mix on the east side of Moore Lake. St. Philip's is located
on a commercial intersection.
Mr. Hickok stated at the Miller Funeral Home quadrant there is a 40 foot strip that was
left between the residential and commercial. That was meant to leave a natural buffer
between the homes and the commercial site. That buffer does not exist on the St.
Philip's site.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he would not support rezoning the property. He also
questioned what house would be affected by the sign that is being proposed.
Mr. Hickok said the reader-board sign they are proposing may be visible from the
houses to the west.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he lives in that area and does not believe the sign would
be a problem.
Mr. Haugen stated they do not believe that rezoning would be a viable option. All they
want to do is put the sign on the northeast corner of the property.
Councilmember Barnette said Redeemer Lutheran and Fridley Covenant Church are
both located in a busy commercial area. He asked who St. Philip's is competing with
that would necessitate a larger sign.
Mr. Haugen stated they are not competing with any of the neighboring businesses but
they are competing, in a sense, for people's attention as they drive down the road. If
they do not have a sign that is comparable to their commercial neighbors, people will
not be able to see their sign which puts them at a disadvantage. They are simply trying
to get some visibility to promote the activities they offer at their church. If there were no
business signs around them, St. Philip's would erect the 32 foot sign and the variance
would not be necessary.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that St. Philip's could place a sign with the church
name right on the building. She does not believe people go to church on impulse and
she does not think St. Philip's is in a unique situation. There are other opportunities for
St. Philip's to get their message out. In addition, she stated she would like to go on
record that she does not think the City needs any bigger signs. She has not heard
anything that shows St. Philip's has a hardship different than the other churches. She
believes St. Philip's does wonderful work, but did not think they will be able to get all
their messages out on the proposed sign. There are better opportunities to show
people how to get to the church property. People traveling the speeds they do on
Highway 65 will not be able to read the sign.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 30
Mayor Lund stated he was concerned that allowing a larger sign would lead to even
larger signs. He is not against the sign itself and does not believe it will be a detriment
but is concerned about making the exception for St. Philip's in a residential zoning
district.
Mr. Haugen said he did not agree that this would open floodgates for a residential
property to request a similar variance.
Mayor Lund asked what other alternatives the petitioner has explored and asked why
they could not get by with a smaller size sign.
Mr. Haugen stated they believe the sign should have the church's name, and the
proposed size is similar to existing signs in the area.
Mr. Spitzer explained part of the reason for the 78 square foot sign is that it will offer
greater flexibility for more characters per line and more lines of text. It also will allow for
larger size letters for the church's name.
Councilmember Billings stated that he believes Mayor Lund's concern is for residential
properties, such as the multi-family housing along University, which may choose to seek
such a variance in the future.
Councilmember Wolfe commented that approving this variance request is not a"green
light for the entire City." This is a unique situation compared to the other churches in
the City because of all the commercial signs in the area. If another church were to
request a similar variance and does not meet the criteria, the Council can say no. He
does not agree that this would be setting a precedent.
Attorney Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, stated Council could say no, but the issue is if
Council does say no and the petitioner challenges it, would the Council be able to
defend their decision. The Council has to treat equal applicants in equal ways. In a R-3
zone, if others make an application that is similar, Council could expect that they would
demand to be treated equally and they can expect that they will argue that a similarly
approved application is not unique. He stated Council needs to know that if they do
accept that this is a unique situation, they need to have a record that will show that it is
distinct from anything that is likely to come before the Council in the future. Churches
that had previously been denied could come back to the Council and ask for equal
treatment.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he believes Petitioner has demonstrated a hardship to
justify the variance request.
Councilmember Barnette commented that he cannot think of a church, because they
are located in residential areas that does not have somewhat of a unique situation.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 31
Councilmember Wolfe responded that none of the churches have large commercial
signs around them.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated no matter where the petitioner places this sign on their
property it is going to be blocked. She referred to the four conditions for approving a
sign variance and said she does not believe the petitioner meets those conditions. She
believes there are things the petitioner could do without the variance.
Mayor Lund stated he has no objection to the proposed sign but is concerned about
approving this request in residential zoning and setting a precedent.
Mr. Haugen stated he would be happy to draft a list of findings to satisfy the criteria for
Council's review.
Mayor Lund stated City ordinance requires action on a variance request within 60 days
and today is the deadline for that 60-day period.
Mr. Haugen stated what he is suggesting is if they are granted the variance there would
be some accompanying finding that would satisfy the criteria. They would like to get
their request acted on this evening.
Mayor Lund stated he does not believe there is a majority of Council members in favor
of this request. He suggested the matter be tabled to the next Council meeting.
Mr. Haugen stated they would be willing to work with City staff to come up with criteria
to support their petition as being unique.
Councilmember Barnette asked if there are any churches in the area in a similar
situation with signage and if other cities allow this type of sign.
Mr. Haugen pointed out that Spring Lake Park has allowed the Assembly of God Church
on the corner of University and Osborne to put up a sign larger than 32 square feet.
Councilmember Barnette stated it may be a good idea to table this matter.
Councilmember Wolfe asked Mr. Hickok if he could find the language, if directed by
Council, to find a way to make this unique.
Mr. Hickok stated he could demonstrate where it is actually unique to their detriment.
He believes the 32 foot sign would be able to stand out and be seen in front of the other
signs. The signs on the other side of the road may be a distraction for those heading
north but they would not block the petitioner's sign. This has a clear view and is as
preferred a position as you could actually put a sign. He is uncomfortable with the
petitioner coming up with the findings because he believes it to be the City's
responsibility to find for or against the petitioner. The petitioner has made a very good
case and they have all the best intentions but the reality is it is incumbent upon Council
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 32
to decide and then to have the findings that would support their decision. It is not up to
the petitioner to find those findings for the City.
Mr. Knaak stated anybody can offer suggested findings at any time, but the findings will
ultimately be based on the information that has been received into the record.
Whatever findings are proposed, if Council decides to table this matter and offer their
findings, Council will ultimately be the decider whether that corresponds with the reality
in this record. He cannot give any good reason to object to the petitioner going forward
with their request being tabled so they can make one last pitch and package the facts in
a way that the Council will agree with them. Council could decide this matter tonight or
table it, if they choose to do so. If Council thinks there is no way the facts can be
packaged (to approve the variance) then they could proceed tonight. He stated he does
not see harm in the process of allowing the petitioner to make one last pitch, as long as
the Council understands that ultimately the decision is theirs based on the record.
Councilmember Billings stated he interpreted their suggestion as an opportunity to more
clearly define their hardship and the reasons that they are exceptional circumstances.
He thinks the burden of proof is theirs make. But he did not know that two or more
weeks would change their ability to rework the information into a form that will convince
anyone who is not already convinced that these are exceptional circumstances. While
he would not speak against a motion to table, he believed the inevitable will happen
sooner or later.
Mr. Haugen stated that there are probably not any other residential properties in Fridley
that consist of 7 acres that are almost totally surrounded by commercial.
Mayor Lund stated he does not believe the size of the property has any relevance and
pointed out that there are many apartment buildings in residential zoning. He added
that he is struggling to find an exception that would make the petitioner's property more
unique.
MOTION by Councimember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to receive
into the record correspondence from Kim J. Miller of Miller Funeral Home.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to approve
Variance Request, VAR #04-14, by St. Philip's Lutheran Church.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER
WOLFE VOTING AYE AND MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, AND
COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION FAILED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 33
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to deny
Variance Request, VAR #04-14, by St. Philip's Lutheran Church.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she does not believe St. Philip's has shown a hardship,
and they can reasonably use their property without this variance. Their sign can be
placed in a location that will be more visible than surrounding signs. She thought there
could be some detriment to the neighborhood if they do have a reader board sign as
they are highly visible from about a block away. They can do what they need to do with
a smaller sign and signage on the building itself.
Mayor Lund stated he is concerned about setting a precedent in the residential zone.
Councilmember Barnette stated he is basing his denial on his concern that every other
church or business in a similar situation will make the same kind of arguments. He
recommended the City look at its sign ordinance to determine whether or not churches
should be treated differently. Also, two churches in Fridley have already been denied
similar requests.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he does not agree that this sign would be a detriment to
the neighborhood.
Mr. Knaak stated that if this motion passes, Council should direct staff to articulate and
summarize the reasons given in writing and provide those reasons and the action taken
by the Council tonight in writing to the applicant.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, AND
COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS
AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Bolkcom directed staff to prepare in writing the reasons for denial of
this request.
Councilmember Billings commented that he disagrees with staff's position and believes
the ideal thing would be to rezone this property to commercial.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she could support that.
Councilmember Billings stated he did not think such a rezoning would be unique to
Fridley and pointed out several locations where commercial abuts residential zoning.
Pastor Brodin stated when they started this project staff advised them that it would be
incredibly costly to change the zoning to commercial which is why St. Philip's chose to
proceed with the variance request.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 34
Mr. Hickok stated if the City's Comprehensive Plan does not match the zoning, it would
have to be amended which would involve two processes at a total cost of over $3,000.
Also, a special use permit would have to be applied for and granted to allow the reader
board sign even if the rezoning was approved.
22. Variance Request, VAR #04-15, bv Bill Hinks, Furniture Outlets, USA, Inc.,
to Increase the Amount of Allowable Wall Siqnaqe on the North Facinq Wall
of the Buildinq from 342 Square Feet to 734 Square Feet; to Increase the
Amount of Allowable Wall Siqnaqe on the West Facinq Wall of the Buildinq
from 289 Square Feet to 420 Square Feet; to Increase the Amount of
Allowable Wall Siqnaqe on the East Facinq Wall from 289 Square Feet to
541 Square Feet; and to Allow Siqnaqe on Three Walls of an Industrial
Buildinq, Generallv Located at 5353 East River Road (Ward 3).
Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated Petitioner is seeking four variances, three of
which will allow an increase in the amount of allowable wall signage on each wall of the
building. The other variance will allow signage on three walls of an industrial building,
compared to two allowed by code. All of these variances are being requested for the
Ashley Home Furniture building located at 5353 East River Road.
Ms. Jones explained Ashley Furniture is located in what was previously the Wickes
building which was constructed in 1971. They had a sign permit to allow 1,477 square
feet of signage on the north elevation and 396 square feet of signage on the west
elevation of the building. According to City records, a variance was not issued for either
of these increases in wall signage. In 1995, a new sign permit was issued to allow two
signs on the west wall of the building and one on the north wall of the building. The
west wall signage consisted of a 95 square foot sign and a 154 square foot sign for a
total of 249 square feet. The sign approved on the north wall was for 296 square feet.
All of these signs met the code size requirements for allowable wall signage. Petitioner
initially applied for sign permits for this building in October 2004. When staff received
the applications, it was for signage much larger than what the code would allow. Staff
then contacted the sign contractor and outlined what our sign code requires for wall
signage and the contractor resubmitted plans to illustrate signs that would meet our sign
code requirements for the west and east walls. Upon approval of the sign permits, staff
set up an inspection with the project manager to measure the signs. When staff
measured the signs, it was evident that they were much larger than what the permits
were issued for. Staff went ahead and allowed Ashley to put up a portion of their signs
that says "Ashley Furniture" on the west and east side, leaving out the "Homestore"
portion, due to the fact that their grand opening was planned for that coming weekend.
This was done with the understanding that petitioner would resubmit applications with
the correct dimensions meeting the code requirements or apply for sign variances.
Ms. Jones explained Section 214.12.5.B of the City sign code requires that the total sign
area shall not exceed fifteen times the square root of the wall length on which the sign is
to be placed. The north facing wall (Interstate 694 side) of the petitioner's building is
520 and the square root is 22.8. When you multiply 22.8 by 15, the north facing wall is
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 35
allowed 342 square feet of signage. The petitioner is seeking to increase the
requirement to 734 square feet, which is 392 square feet more than allowed by code.
The west facing wall of the building is 371 feet in length which would allow a 289 square
foot sign. The petitioner is seeking to increase the requirement to 420 square feet
which is 131 square feet more than allowed by code. The east facing wall is also 371
feet in length which would allow 289 square feet of signage. Petitioner is seeking to
increase the requirement on the east wall to 541 square feet which is 252 square feet
more than allowed by code. For the fourth variance, the City sign code allows wall
signage to be displayed on only 2 different walls per business. Petitioner is seeking to
allow signage on three walls of their building.
Ms. Jones stated that before Council can grant such a variance, it is the responsibility of
the applicant to meet four conditions. She presented the following analysis of each of
the following four code conditions:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the
intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity
and district.
The circumstances surrounding the location of this property are neither
exceptional nor extraordinary to allow signs larger than the code allows.
The property has good visibility from Interstate 694. The property is not
unique when compared to neighboring properties or other similar zoned
property in Fridley. All other wall signage along Interstate 694 met the
sign code requirements including industrially zoned properties and
commercially zoned properties.
The previous owner of this building had signage that met the sign code
requirements and which provided good visibility for the business. The
property located east of the subject property is Home Valu, which is a
similar type of business with both retail and warehouse space. Home Valu
complies with the code requirements for wall signage, which is visible from
Interstate 694. They were, however, granted a variance in 1993 to have a
free-standing sign increased from 80 square feet to 160 square feet.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but
which is denied the property in question.
Denying a variance for the excessive size of signage does not eliminate
the opportunity for signage on the property. Petitioner has the opportunity
to have 289 square feet of signage on the west and east wall and 342
square feet of signage on the north wall. This amount of signage as well
as the distinctive architectural design of the building will help to provide
good visibility from Interstate 694. Petitioner may also want to consider
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 36
up-lighting the building which will also help to bring attention to the
building, without requiring larger signage.
3. The strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship.
City staff has not been able to identify any statutory-defined hardship for
this site, in relation to the size requests. The petitioner's desire to have
larger signage than what the code allows does not constitute a hardship.
Strict application of the code would still allow signage on two walls of the
building as well as a free-standing 80 square foot sign. The site has good
visibility from Interstate 694 and the size and design of the building
provides a visual attraction to motorists.
4. Granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in
which the property is located.
The purpose of the sign code requirements is to allow adequate signage
to reduce the visual pollution and distractions for the motoring public.
While increasing the size of the signage may not necessarily be
detrimental to the public or surrounding properties in this vicinity, once
granted, the variance would be precedent setting for all other industrially
zoned properties or properties located within the Interstate 694 corridor.
Increasing the code requirements by what the petitioner is asking, without
a compelling hardship, would essentially be re-writing the standards for
wall signage in our code.
Ms. Jones stated petitioner is also seeking a variance to allow signage on three walls of
an industrial building, instead of the code required two. The sign on the north side of
the building helps to provide visibility from Interstate 694, the sign on the west side
provides directional signage for customer pick-up and semi-traffic and the signage on
the east side highlights the entrance of the building.
Ms. Jones said that as part of this sign variance review process, City staff contacted
some of the surrounding communities and other communities out-state to see what they
allow for wall signage. Through their research, it was determined that Fridley City code
allows a generous amount of wall signage, compared to some of the other communities
surveyed. For example, many communities allow a certain percentage of signage for
each wall; however they then cap it at a certain amount of square feet.
Ms. Jones stated that at their December 8 meeting, the Appeals Commission
recommended approval of the variance request to allow signage on three sides of an
industrial building but recommended denial of all three variance requests to increase the
amount of wall signage. Both motions carried unanimously. Staff recommends
concurrence with the Appeals Commission on this matter.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 37
Ms. Jones said if the variances are granted, staff recommends the following stipulations
be attached:
1. The petitioner shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation of any additional
signage.
2. This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur;
a. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change
of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements.
b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled.
c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled.
d. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into
compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of
the sign and its structure shall be removed.
e. Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, upon the change of the name of
the business being displayed on this sign.
Councilmember Wolfe said they may want to consider rewriting the sign ordinance as
far as determining the allowable size of the sign.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned how the total square footage of signage the
petitioner is requesting compares to what is allowed in other cities.
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, responded that most of the other
communities have caps, usually 200 square feet, on the size of the sign allowed. Our
city code seeks to create a relationship between the size of the sign and the size of the
wall. He also stated that staff has not received complaints from any sign company
regarding the code restrictions for signs in the City. This situation is rare when the code
requirements are not adequate.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked why the original signs that went up were larger than
allowed by code. She also questioned how the addition of "Homestore" to "Ashley
Furniture" will impact the size of the sign as it relates to code restrictions.
Mr. Hickok stated the signage on the building now does not exceed the code
dimensions but the addition of "Homestore" will take it over the top. "Homestore" is
important to Ashley Furniture because it is part of the relationship they have with the
parent company and they need to have "Homestore" on the building. What happened is
that the signage that was approved on paper through the permit process was not the
signage that arrived on the site.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there will be any free-standing signs.
Mr. Bill Hinks, President of Furniture Outlets, stated he was not aware of the incorrect
sign size prior to discovery by City staff. He believes the sign contractor created the
signs believing they had been approved and sent those signs to the site assuming that
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 38
they would be put up. He indicated they had not had any signage problems prior to this
incident.
Councilmember Wolfe asked if the sign made for this store is the same as signs made
for other stores.
Mr. Hinks responded they are. He further stated that when they met with City staff
regarding the sign variance, staff advised them to go for a variance for as much sign as
they would prefer to have. They did check with Ashley Furniture and they said they
could leave the sign as is on the west side of the building and not put up the word
"Homestore." The only other signage they will need on the west side is the designation
for customer pick-up. Consequently they will only be placing 272 square feet of signage
on the west side of the building. On the east side of the building, Ashley again said they
would allow them to not add the word "Homestore" as long as they erect a free-standing
sign that contains the word "Homestore." The existing sign on the east side of the
building is about 35 square feet larger than it is supposed to be. He explained that City
staff ineasures from the top of the highest point of the sign, which would be the top of
the capital "A" in Ashley and squares it off. Consequently, about 22 square feet of the
area counted by staff is actually not signage area. Every other community in which they
have erected their signs did not include this area in their measurement. Measuring it
that way, the existing sign would be within 2 or 3 square feet of the requirements. They
would like to keep the existing sign on the east side.
Mr. Hinks stated he believes that the north side of their building meets the requirements
for special circumstances. He did not believe the Fridley City code adequately
addresses a wall of this size as far as allowable signage. The north wall is 16,671
square of face which is why Wickes erected a 1,440 square foot sign. The 342 square
feet allowable size for a sign just is not adequate based on the setback from the
highway and the angle of the building. Their signage was included in their plans from
the very beginning when it was initially presented to the City in 2003 and they assumed
the approved plans included their signage.
Mr. Todd Phelps, the petitioner's attorney from Leonard, Street and Deinard, stated the
project architects had at least eleven meetings with City staff discussing their plans and
explicitly discussing the proposed signage back in late 2003 or early 2004. The
petitioner relied upon those discussions and the approvals they received to make a very
substantial investment in this building.
Mr. Hinks explained they even went so far as to cut a corner off of their building to allow
room for a fire truck. This change alone cost them $50,000. He also argued that there
are communities where much larger signage is allowed.
Mr. Phelps said he has represented numerous clients in front of other municipalities on
signage issues, and many of those cities are more liberal in not only their sign
ordinances but in how they are calculating the square footage of their signage.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 39
Councilmember Bolkcom asked the size of the sign being requested for the north wall.
Mr. Hinks stated it is 732 square feet and the code allows 242 square feet.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what size the free-standing sign will be.
Mr. Hinks stated it will be the size allowed by code which is 80 square feet, and no
variance will be requested.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if the numbers she has are correct; 732 on the north,
272 square feet on the west, 324 square feet on the east, and an 80 square foot free-
standing sign; added all together it is well within what was granted next door at Home
Valu and it seems reasonable.
Councilmember Barnette commented that this building does not have very good
visibility coming from the west. He said if it can be done within reasonable bounds he
would support the request.
Mayor Lund asked if there is an ordinance for total signage on a building or if it is
specific to each side only.
Mr. Hickok stated each side is taken independently.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Hinks if the square footage Councilmember Bolkcom
just listed is based on City staff's measurements.
Mr. Hinks stated that is correct.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to receive
into the record letters of support of this proposal from: Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.,
dated December 30, 2004; Aramark Uniform Services dated January 3, 2005; Rudy
Boschwitz, Chairman of Home Valu Interiors dated December 21, 2004; and Gerry
Boschwitz, President and CEO of Home Valu Interiors dated January 3, 2005.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
Variance Request, VAR #04-15, with the west side signage being 272 square feet, the
east side signage being 324 square feet, and the north side signage being 734 square
feet with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall obtain sign permit prior to installation of any additional
signage.
2. This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur:
A. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change
of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 40
B. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled.
C. The face of the sign is replaces or remodeled.
D. The sign becomes dilapidated or damages and the cost of bringing it into
compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of
the sign and its structure shall be removed.
E. Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) above, upon the change of the name of
the business being displayed on this sign.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she believes this is a good compromise and she is very
comfortable that Council is not setting any type of precedent. It is similar to what Home
Valu has and Council has been reassured that they will not be coming back for a
variance on a free-standing sign.
Councilmember Billings stated the stipulations are the typical requirements for all sign
variances including signs that come into non-conformity. He believes Council needs to
document for the record why they are approving this because they just denied a sign
variance. From his point of view, he finds this property to be somewhat unique from the
standpoint that its main visibility is from Interstate 694. There is not a through street
running immediately adjacent to the property. It is off a frontage road that you have to
access from about a half a mile away on a street that is a perpendicular street. In
addition, he believes all of the business immediately adjacent to Interstate 694 should
be placed in some type of special overlay district for signage and he will work on that in
the future.
Mr. Hickok stated Home Value has a free-standing sign with 160 square feet; a variance
they had before the sign code existed.
Councilmember Billings stated the City gave Home Valu a variance for their pylon sign
that is twice the normal size and this petitioner has agreed that they will not be applying
for a variance for the pylon sign. This petitioner is asking that their variance be on the
building rather than on a pylon sign. Therefore, Council does have a kind of established
procedure in this particular industrial area for accommodating commercial businesses
that exist there.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated Home Valu is an example of why we did grant a
variance for their larger pylon sign for some of the same reasons, such as visibility
along Interstate 694.
Mr. Hickok explained that Home Valu was granted a variance for the pylon sign by
giving up the right to a second pylon sign on a second legally described site.
Mr. Knaak stated if a variance is granted, a uniqueness be established in the record so
this does not become a major loophole; identifying the characteristics of this particular
area, laying out the facts that a significant variance had been granted in the same
industrial district right next door for some of the same reasons. He said he thought
Council has articulated generally some reasons for the variance and as long as they are
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 41
aware of the risk and as long as they are limited to a particular kind of district and point
out the issues with respect to visibility from the freeway, they have a reasonably
defendable chance that it could be somewhat restricted. Council should be sure that
the only identifier is not the visibility from the freeway or there may be other people
applying for variances in different zones with that as the basis for the variance. He said
his preference on this matter would be for Council to defer action and direct staff to
prepare defendable findings as a basis for granting the variance.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe to table
consideration of Variance Request, VAR #04-15, in order to fully examine and study the
request and to extend the timeframe to respond to the petitioner by 60 days and to
notify the petitioner in writing of the 60-day extension as soon as possible.
Mr. Hinks expressed concern about another delay in getting the sign erected on the
north wall because the sales force in their Fridley store are doing only 15% of the
business that sales associates in other stores are doing.
Mr. Knaak stated if Council decides to grant the variance, they must have findings.
Council had an adverse recommendation from staff and what they need now is findings
from staff that they can review that would ultimately make their decision defendable.
Mr. Hickok explained that the 60-day legislative limit actually expires today and,
technically, he should give the extension notice in writing to the petitioner tonight.
Mr. Phelps, petitioner's attorney, stated on the record, they will waive the 60-day
requirement.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO TABLE
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
23. Informal Status Reports.
No reports presented.
ADJOURN
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOUNRED AT 2:15 AM.
Respectfully submitted by,
Rebecca Brazys
Recording Secretary
������
Scott J. Lund
Mayor